l\.

epublit of tbe ~bihppine~

~upreme QCourt
;iftilanila .

EN BANC

SUSAN BASIYO, and ANDREW A.C. No. 11543

WILLIAM SIMMONS,
Complainants, Present:

SERENO, C.J.,
CARPIO,*
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
- versus - LEONEN,
JARDELEZA **
'
CAGUIOA,
MARTIRES,
TIJAM,
REYES, JR., and
GESMUNDO, JJ.

Promulgated:
ATTY. JOSELITO C. ALISUAG,
· Respondent. September 26, 2017
x--------------------------------------------------~~~ ........~--------x

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

The instant case sprung from a complaint which Susan Basiyo and
Andrew William Simmons filed against respondent Atty. Joselito C.
Alisuag, for alleged deceit, falsification, and malpractice, in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

tfl
On official leave .
•• On wellness leave.
 '
Decision 2 A.C. No. 11543

t
The procedural and factual antecedents of the case are as follows:

Complainants Basiyo and Simmons, who are common-law husband

and wife, put up a pension house called "Rose Place" located in Puerto
Princesa, Palawan. Thereafter, they started looking for a piece of land since
they needed a bigger place. That was the time when they met Alisuag, who
recommended a lot in Bacungan. He told complainants that the vendors,
Rogelio Garcia and Rosalina Talorong, had the full right to dispose of the
same although the property was in the name of one Alejandro Castillo.

On January 12, 2008, Alisuag prepared and notarized a Deed of

Absolute Sale covering the subject property with an area of 32,897 square
meters for the total purchase price of Pl,973,820.00. Basiyo signed said
document as the Vendee. Previously, Alisuag also signed an Agreement
dated January 12, 2008 between Basiyo and the same vendors, for the same
purcha·se price. Said Agreement, however, was not duly notarized. For
brokering the sale, and preparing and notarizing the documents, Alisuag
received one percent (1 % ) of the total purchase price. Complainants
likewise gave him P150,000.00 for capital gains tax, P70,000.00 for estate
tax, Pl 0,000.00 for publication, and PS,000.00 for documentary stamp tax.
Also, since complainants were intending to use the property for business
purposes, Alisuag offered to make for them an Environmental Impact Study
for a Wildlife Permit, for the amount of P300,000.00, and to file an
application for said permit for another P300,000.00. Complainants,
however, not only failed to get the title to the property, but ·were likewise
subjected to a criminal charge by Trinidad Ganzon, who claimed real
ownership over the land. Thus, complainants gave Alisuag P40,000.00 for
the filing of their counter-affidavit in said case and Pl0,000.00 for the filing
of a civil case against Ganzon.

After several months and attempts to contact Alisuag, complainants

were still unable to acquire the title and fence the purchased lot, the
environmental study and wildlife permit remained unaccomplished, and no
case was filed against Ganzon. They then decided to consult another lawyer
and told Alisuag's wife that they wanted an accounting of the expenses and
return of any remaining money given in connection with the sale. After
consulting their new lawyer, complainants discovered that no estate tax was
paid, only P25,001.00 was paid for capital gains tax, and the purchase price
was merely P120,000:00, as shown in the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
Certificate Authorizing Registration and in the copy of the Pagbabagong
Labas sa Hukuman na May Bilihang Gawa o Lubusan sa !sang Bahagi ng
Pirasong Lupa, which Alisuag notarized and the Palawan Mirror published.
They also found out that Alisuag did not present the document to the
National Commission of Indigenous Peoples for approval, as required under
the law since the vendors are native Tagbanuas. The vendors likewise
inform.ed complainants that they only received P300,000.00 as paymen#
 Decision 3 A.C. No. 11543

the property. Lastly, they learned that the vendors were not the only heirs of
the registered owner, Castillo. Thus, they incurred additional expenses when
they had to enter into an Amended Extra-Judicial Settlement of Castillo's
estate with the latter'~· other
, heirs. Hence, complainants filed a complaint
against Alisuag.

" .
For his part,, Alisuag denied complainants' accusations. He contended
that he was not part of the group of brokers who convinced Simmons to
purchase the property. On January 19, 2008, the vendors Garcia and
Talorong came to his office with an Extra-Judicial Partition and
simultaneous sale written in Tagalog. He then reminded them that they had
already signed a previous Deed of Sale with complainants. The vendors,
however, told him that the new Deed of Sale reflected the real intention of
the parties. Thus, Alisuag notarized the same. He also claimed that he had
been actively handling the cases and proceedings covering the lot, including
the case initiated by Ganzon, until complainants terminated his services as
their counsel. He likewise claimed that the payment of the required taxes
over the sale of the property was handled by the brokers and he denied any
participation in the same. Complainants never demanded, formally or
informally, for the return or accounting of any money. The first time that he
came across said issue was when the affidavit complaint was sent to him.

On January 21, 2011, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD) recommended that the
administrative complaint against Alisuag be dismissed for lack of merit. 1 It
ratiocinated that Alisuag' s act of notarizing a subsequent deed of sale
presented to him by the vendors did not constitute deceit; he was merely
performing his duties as a notary public. On December 29, 2012, however,
the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2012-594, 2 which
reversed the recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and found Alisuag guilty of
deceit and falsification, and ordered his suspension from the practice of law
for two (2) years, thus:

RESOLVED to REVERSE, as it is hereby unanimously REVERSED the

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A, "
and finding Respondent _guilty of deceit and falsification, Atty. Joselito C.
Alisuag is hereby SUSPENDED
·,,
from the practice of law for two (2)
years. ~

Report and Recommendation submitted by Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala; rollo, pp.

128-136.
2
Rollo, p. 127.

~
Decision 4 A.C. No. 11543

On July 28, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors consequently issued an

Extended Resolution.

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and
recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors.

The records show that on January 12, 2008, Alisuag prepared and
notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale for the purchase price of Pl,973,820.00,
covering a lot registered under the name of Alejandro Castillo, with an area
of 32,~97 square meters. Prior to that, however, there had been a similar
document, also dated January 12, 2008, but with Basiyo as the lone vendee.
This had also been notarized by Alisuag sans the notarial document details.
Yet another Deed of Sale, dated January 19, 2008, with Document Number
77, Page Number 16, Book XII, Series of 2008, was also signed and
acknowledged by Alisuag as notary public, as published on the local
newspaper, Palawan· Mirror. Notably, the purchase price indicated in this
document was only P120,000.00. According to Alisuag, he agreed to
notarize the same because the vendors told him that the P120,000.00 was the
purchase price the parties had eventually agreed on. However, six (6) days
after Alisuag had notarized the deed of sale with the purchase price of
P120,000.00, he gave complainants an estimate of P150,000.00 for capital
gains tax. How he arrived at P150,000.00 perplexes the Court. Even if the
purchase price used was Pl,973,820.00 for the computation of the capital
gains tax six percent (6%), the amount of PlS0,000.00 would still be
excessive. Also, based on the BIR Certificate Authorizing Registration, no
estate tax was either assessed or paid.

Moreover, despite receiving an additional Pl 0,000.00 for the filing of

a civil suit against Ganzon, Alisuag never filed said case. He likewise failed
to secure the environmental clearance and the wildlife permit for which he
had previously received P300,000.00. He also refused to render a complete
accounting of the alleged expenses incurred relative to the purchase of the
subject property.

Certainly, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from

his office for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice. 3 By notarizing another
deed of sale with a much lower purchase price, which was later submitted to
the BIR for the purpose of paying the capital gains tax, Alisuag clearly
violated his duty of upholding the respect for the law and protecting the

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

{7t/
Decision 5 A.C. No. 11543

integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He allowed and acknowledged

a document which was meant to deprive the government of the correct
amount of taxes. Additionally, he indubitably violated the following
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed
to file the suit against Ganzon and secure the required environmental
permits, and when he refused to account for the amounts given to him by
complainants, to wit:

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS

AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO
HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.

xx xx

Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when 'due or upon demand. x x x

xx xx

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF

HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST
AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

xx xx

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Alisuag' s failure and inordinate refusal to render an accounting and

return the remaining money after numerous demands raises a reasonable
presumption that he had converted it to his own use. 4

the Court, therefore, agrees with the IBP Board's finding that Alisuag
must be held administratively accountable for his actions. Corollarily,
Alisuag must render the necessary accounting of expenses incurred and
return the remaining unutilized amount. While it is true that disciplinary
proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the respondent-
lawyer' s administrative, and not civil, liability, it must be clarified that said
rule remains applicable only when the claim involves moneys received by

4
Viray v. Atty. Sanicas, 744 Phil. 247, 254 (2014).
(J1
 .
Decision 6 A.C. No. 11543

the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct from, and not
intrinsically linked to, his professional engagement, as in the present case. 5

In recent jurisprudence, however, the Court has perpetually

disqualified the lawyer-respondents from being commissioned as a notary
public for failing to observe the utmost care in performing their duties to
preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. 6 The
duty to public service is made more important when a lawyer is
commissioned as a notary public. Like the duty to defend a client's cause
within the bounds of law, a notary public has the additional duty to preserve
public trust and confidence in his office by observing extra care and
diligence in ensuring the integrity of every document that comes under his
notarial seal, and seeing to it that only documents that he personally
inspected and whose signatories he personally identified are recorded in his
notarial books. 7

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court

SUSPENDS Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag from the practice of law for two (2)
years effective upon his receipt of this Decision, REVOKES his notarial
commission, if presently commissioned, and PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public,
ORDERS him to RENDER the necessary accounting of expenses incurred
relative to the purchase of the property and RETURN to complainants
Susan Basiyo and Andrew William Simmons the remaining unutilized
amount within sixty (60) days from notice of this Decision, and WARNS
him that a repetition of the same or similar offense, including the failure to
render the necessary accounting and to return any remaining amount, shall
be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this decision be included in the personal record of Atty.

Joselito C. Alisuag and entered in his file in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

Let copies of this decision be disseminated to all lower courts by the

Office of the Court Administrator, as well as to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for its guidance.

Pitcher v. Atty. Gagate, 719 Phil. 82, 94 (2013 ).

6
Orlando S. Castelo, et al. v. Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching, A.C. No. 11165, February 6, 2017;
Mariano v. Atty. Echanez, A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016; Anudon v. Atty. Cefra, 753 Phil. 421 (201:;;5; De /
Jesus v. Atty. Sanchez-Malit, 738 Phil. 480 (2014).
7
Orlando S. Castelo, et al. v. Ronald Segundino C. Ching, A.C. No. 11165, February 6, 2017.
 Decision 7 A.C. No. 11543

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

~~
On official leave
ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBIT~O J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice ~ssociate Justice

~~h~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice

~u~ IA(). (L~

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ESTELA~. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
t

On wellness leave
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice

S.CAGUIOA s

~~
:/
NOEL , Z TIJAM ANDRE~~YES, JR.
Ass Jus ice Asfo?J.ate Justice

DO
CERTIFIED XEROX COPY:

~\->-~-~
FELIPA S. ANAMA
CLERK OF COURY, EN BANC
SUi'REM£ COURT